I’m going to address each point in separate posts.

1) Lack of ethics in journalism.

First off, when the allegations first started, people did not know they were not true. They believed there was a conflict of interest. That turned out to be false, and most people have moved on from that specific accusation.

I was actually anti-gg, as a knee jerk reaction to that. That is, until I became aware of the shady crap that LW has been accused of in regards to the FYC game jam. That is not right, and the fact that the crusading media did not even mention this is a problem too.

This also goes beyond ZQ:

https://imgur.com/a/HHpnv

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/2ejs7v/gaming_journalists_patricia_hernandez_of_kotaku/

These, in particular, are most troubling to me:

http://www.gamezone.com/originals/here-s-what-we-know-allistair-pinsof-destructoid-yanier-niero-gonzalez-game-journo-pros-and-more
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite

The mainstream media coverage has also been very troubling, specially in light of this doozy from the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

Something a biased Boston Globe journalist actually tries to downplay:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2jrmwj/boston_globes_jesse_singal_implicated_in_vote

I used to think the calls of bias and censorship were poppycock, but wikileaks has made me reconsider:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/511727048931282944

I’m actually wishing that they move on from videogames and start questioning the MSM as a whole.

Do you think that the above are a problem? If so, do you agree that they should be examined?

Arroz, couldn't keep me on the block list, eh?

Like my 'I'm leaving this thread forever!' I suppose.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;7948951) Lack of ethics in journalism.

First off, when the allegations first started, people did not know they were not true. They believed there was a conflict of interest. That turned out to be false, and most people have moved on from that specific accusation.

First of all, there was no hidden information revealed to show that the accusation was false. The fact that the accusation was false was clear from Gjoni's post and the dates of Nathan Grayson's coverage. It is an embarrassment that no one bothered to check the dates in jumping on the bandwagon. The accusation consisted of nothing but blatant lies and doxxing.

Maybe it is true that by now the majority of GamerGaters have moved on from that specific accusation, but I've had that accusation argued with me in this specific thread (by S'mon and Novastar) - and none of the pro-GamerGate posters here contradicted them.

As I've said earlier, I am completely willing to believe that some accusations of lack of ethics in game journalism are true. I'm absolutely willing to make statements in favor of ethics in game journalism, but I'm not going support the GamerGate tag. Mind you, if someone were to start up a tag like "bustGamerGate" or "DeathOfGamers" with a false and maliciously personal accusation against Pinsof, say, then I wouldn't support that either.

A few further:

1) The thing that I am most against is lies, false accusations, doxxing, harassment, and threats - which I agree is present from both some pro-GamerGaters and some anti-GamerGaters. This is fucking ridiculous to get into over games.

2) Opinion pieces like Leigh's "'Gamers' are Over" and/or subjective analyses like Sarkeesian's videos are not unethical. You might disagree with them, but they are in a wholly different category from unethical behavior like payola reviews or blacklisting blacklisting - let alone the behavior in #1.

3) In general, I am opposed to lies and personal attacks, but outside of these, accusations of "collusion" and "bias" are bullshit. No one is unbiased, and everyone is entitled to talk privately to each other. Collusion to lie is unethical. Collusion to write opinion pieces is fine.

JHKIM: People have said repeatedly 'maybe try a hashtag more on-topic without the poison of starting with lies and attracting assholes.'

And the general reaction is essentially 'but people might not pay attention then!'

Which basically means 'we're riding on the heat of liars and assholes, but we're TOTALLY NOT WITH THEM.'

Quote from: jhkim;794903First of all, there was no hidden information revealed to show that the accusation was false. The fact that the accusation was false was clear from Gjoni's post and the dates of Nathan Grayson's coverage.

It is an embarrassment that no one bothered to check the dates in jumping on the bandwagon. The accusation consisted of nothing but blatant lies and doxxing.

Embarrassing, sure. Most people don't check their sources. And most took sides before even looking at them. I took Zoe's side just based on what other people said about #gamergate being nothing but misogyny, until I decided to take a closer look. Sexual behavior aside, she doesn't exactly have clean hands.  

QuoteMaybe it is true that by now the majority of GamerGaters have moved on from that specific accusation, but I've had that accusation argued with me in this specific thread (by S'mon and Novastar) - and none of the pro-GamerGate posters here contradicted them.

If I'd seen it, or noticed it, I would have said something. I don't keep track of what everyone is saying in this thread, nor is it my job to contradict every piece of misinformation someone might repeat.

Quote2) Opinion pieces like Leigh's "'Gamers' are Over" and/or subjective analyses like Sarkeesian's videos are not unethical. You might disagree with them, but they are in a wholly different category from unethical behavior like payola reviews or blacklisting blacklisting - let alone the behavior in #1.

I don't recall saying anything about Leigh's opinion piece or its ethics, but I did link to her tweets about 'hood men' and 'hood rats'. Can you imagine the outrage had someone from the wrong crowd had tweeted something of the sort?

It's wrong from whomever it comes and it's appalling that the so called guardians of justice as a whole have apparently not said a thing.

Quote3) In general, I am opposed to lies and personal attacks, but outside of these, accusations of "collusion" and "bias" are bullshit. No one is unbiased, and everyone is entitled to talk privately to each other. Collusion to lie is unethical. Collusion to write opinion pieces is fine.

They collided to ignore the accusations of the ethically problematic conflicts of interests, that were undisclosed, for example. That's lying by omission, or at the very least it's very convenient.

Quote from: jhkim;794903As I've said earlier, I am completely willing to believe that some accusations of lack of ethics in game journalism are true. I'm absolutely willing to make statements in favor of ethics in game journalism, but I'm not going support the GamerGate tag. Mind you, if someone were to start up a tag like "bustGamerGate" or "DeathOfGamers" with a false and maliciously personal accusation against Pinsof, say, then I wouldn't support that either.

By the way, this is called the fallacy of origin. And as I have pointed out, it's as ridiculous as demanding that people stop using #feminism because that movement includes transphobic and racist members.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794896

Since what I disapprove of is the actual origin of the GamerGate hashtag - i.e. Adam Baldwin's tweet and Internet Aristocrat's Quinnspiracy video - I don't think that this applies to me.

Quote from: Will;794908JHKIM: People have said repeatedly 'maybe try a hashtag more on-topic without the poison of starting with lies and attracting assholes.'

And the general reaction is essentially 'but people might not pay attention then!'

Which basically means 'we're riding on the heat of liars and assholes, but we're TOTALLY NOT WITH THEM.'

If someone here actually makes the argument "but people might not pay attention then", then I'd argue with that.

I THINK people have made the argument here, but ... I'm not super motivated to dig through 590 posts to verify.

The argument has been made by some, anyway:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/

QuoteAs to the question of why Gamergate supporters couldn't just rally under a different banner that's not tainted by the association with misogyny, FinnyLawliet said  the answer is simple: Change the name, and the conversation dies.

"Gamergate actually owes a lot of its success to the controversy.  It's less that it has to be a conversation about misogyny specifically, and more that it's a fairly basic Streisand effect," he said."The more the media tells people not to look, to just go away, the more people get curious." Plus, he added, it's not easy to get another hashtag started, and there are no guarantees that it could produce a conversation any more coherent than the current one.

Of course, 'doesn't speak for everyone/media is biased/etc'

Quote from: BenTheFerg;794859Glad to hear it!  It did read that way  - but glad - despite us being polls apart on what constitutes anything going for 'reality' in the media - glad at least we can agree that Whedon's work is enjoyable and of value.  & agreed on the Avengers!  

I think my favourite lines went something like this, particularly cool considering that Whedon, like me, is atheist:

Female Avenger:
"They (the Asgardians) are unstoppable...
They're basically gods!"

Captain America:
"There's only one God, ma'am.
And they ain't it."

Quote from: BenTheFerg;794861The problem with utilitarian ethics is that is does not protect minorities well.  The greatest happiness for the greatest number..... ideas of natural rights doesn't sit well in that philosophy.  How does one live out the principles of the UN's Charter for Human Rights?  How do societies deal with entrenched power groups who deny minorities access to resources/ justice etc etc?  If we were all equal, and all rational, then I think Bentham's ideas would have greater credence. IMHO

Yes, obviously I agree with Bentham that Human Rights are 'nonsense on stilts'. Utilitarianism allows 'the needs of the many to outweigh the needs of the few' - as a practical matter that is how any society has to operate: criminals are punished, and soldiers are sent to die on behalf of the 'greater good'. Those young Kurdish women holding Kobane against ridiculous odds are facing almost certain death so that their people might have a chance to survive. Likewise the IS scum attacking them are doing it for their conception of the 'greater good'.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;794878I understand my ideologies.

But you claim that Cultural Marxism has some kind of hegemonic control .... in the US? Over whom? Games designers? Journalists?  

Journalists, certainly. Most of the US news media, although Fox News was created as a reaction against that so it has different biases. It's most deeply entrenched in the media, the legal profession, teacher training colleges, US Universities (which are much more stifling than UK Universities - we often still adhere more to classical Marxism here) and most especially the bureaucracies. It only recently became hegemonic in the US military and in London's Metropolitan Police, I think Ian Blair was the first c-M adherent Commissioner of the Met, and the current Commissioner doesn't seem to be. The upper echelons of the US military have gone heavily C-M though. I remember after the large-scale Fort Hood massacre by the jihadi traitor Major Nidal Hassan, when General Casey said that although the massacre was a tragedy, the greater tragedy would be if Diversity suffered! Nothing about improving screening & security to stop it happening again.
I don't think it's hegemonic over videogame designers, which is a large part of what the recent cafuffle is about, and obviously not over the 'gamer' subculture. It is hegemonic in the Seattle tabletop rpg industry, notably Paizo are very strong adherents - not that that stops the rpgnet SJWs from calling Golarion racist.

Well, I guess this is expected from TBP:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609&p=18395417#post18395417

What a contrast to this site. Thanks Pundit! And I mean that.

I second that.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794926Well, I guess this is expected from TBP:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?739609&p=18395417#post18395417

What a contrast to this site. Thanks Pundit! And I mean that.

Quote from: Will;794928I second that.

I Third that.
Talking about trying to control the information.